With the recent crackdown by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) on unfair contract terms in online contracts, the question whether website operators terms and conditions are contractually binding has risen again. This is commonly referred to as the click wrap vs browse wrap debate.
Despite the paucity of Australian case law on this issue, the case of eBay International AG v Creative Festival Entertainment Pty Limited (ACN 098 183 281) [2006] FCA 1768 (18 December 2006) (eBay) provides guidance on how a court is likely to determine whether or not the terms and conditions on a website will form a binding contract.
In eBay, the question for determination was whether the operator of the website (Creative) had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by including a condition that tickets resold via online auction sites could be cancelled if onsold. The Court held that the relevant conditions “conveyed a misleading representation that the seller is legally entitled to and would detect and cancel any ticket which is resold for profit and the holder of that ticket would be refused entry to the event“.
What was the Court’s reasoning?
In arriving at the conclusion that it did, the Rares J cited various cases which were authority for the principle that the parties cannot rely on the terms and conditions of contract unless at the time the contract was made, the issuer did “all that was reasonably necessary to bring the terms to the other party’s attention“. In case this it was held to be misleading and deceptive to purport to rely on conditions which were not adequately brought to the attention of purchasers.
This case highlights the importance of getting the basics right in preparing online contracts particularly in light of the consumer protection provisions contained in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
Further information
If your business needs more information about online contracts, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about online law
-
Federal parliament passes cyber security laws
On 25 November 2024, the Australian Parliament passed a suite of legislation, collectively referred to by the Australian Government as the Cyber Security Legislative Package 2024. The purported impetus for this legislation was a series of high-profile data breaches in 2022 and 2023.
-
Domain name disputes – a summary of the process
A domain name is a string of text that maps to an alphanumeric IP address, enabling users to access websites through client-side software.[1] Domains can be valuable business assets, and they frequently become the subject of disputes regarding the legitimacy of their registration among organisations with competing rights.
-
New OAIC guidance on Artificial Intelligence
On 21 October 2024, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) published two (2) new guides on artificial intelligence (AI), purportedly in effort to make privacy compliance easier for business.
-
Artificial Intelligence defined – why no uniform approach?
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is commonly thought of as the capacity of computer systems to execute tasks that usually need human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, and making decisions.[1] It covers a range of specialised fields, each focusing on different functions. For example, machine learning allows computers to learn from data, computer vision enables them to…
-
New USPTO guidelines on AI assisted inventions
In response to the Biden administration’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence on 30 October 2023, which outlined policies and principles to promote responsible Artificial Intelligence innovation and competition, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued inventorship guidance for artificial intelligence (AI) assisted inventions. These…
-
Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses
Justice Burley of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Siemens Industry Software Inc v Telstra Corporation Limited [2020] FCA 901 ordered that Telstra, within fourteen (14) days, provide to Siemens all documents in its control relating to the identity of certain Telstra Account holders. Those account holders were suspected by Siemens of…
